Here Come the 'Men in Black': Overhauling the UK Policing Framework with a new FBI-Style Policing Team

The Government has recently announced its newest scheme in attempting to repair the wounded public trust in the police force. Dubbed ‘the British FBI’ by both the executive and the media, proposals for a National Police Service (NPS) include the centralisation of specialist police taskforces such as counter-terrorism command and the National Crime Agency under one umbrella force.

National Police Commissioner

Proposals also include the creation of a new post, the National Police Commissioner, to represent the most senior police officer in the country and to act as the figurehead of this new special police team. Early plans also include for the NPS to procure and utilise new technology such as biometric identification systems to increase investigative capability whilst maintaining cost efficiency.

Whilst local forces would retain jurisdiction over community policing and crimes of more routine nature, the NPS is designed to relieve those forces in circumstances where investigations are complex or resource-intensive.

Should the 'British FBI' need a licence to practise?

An interesting suggestion, for those working within the criminal and regulatory law industries, is for police officers to be subject to a licence to practise. Under the proposed system, officers would need to demonstrate ongoing competence and professional development whilst adhering to a strict code of conduct to which their regulator may hold them accountable.

In the wake of Wayne Couzens and the various other now-convicted ex-police officers that came after him, it is not a surprise to see a concerted effort from the police to recover its image in the eyes of the public. Many regulatory and criminal defence law professionals have long been calling for this type of scrutiny, and therefore it may come as some welcome relief, albeit long overdue, that police officers are being brought into alignment with other professions that carry such great civic responsibility.

Significant reforms proposed but will they be enough?

It remains to be seen whether these reforms will go any distance in rehabilitating the relationship between the public and the police, or whether instead these proposals represent a re-brand in name only without addressing the root causes of the problems with the police forces of this country. A stringent regulatory framework is a step in the right direction, however, some may argue there is a limited impact given the Independent Office for Police Conduct already exists with the purpose to hold officers to account in much the same way that a regulator would. Whilst this new step could be seen as a smoke-and-mirrors approach, giving the illusion of change and reform whilst ultimately re-branding the same institutions, others may also see this as an important symbolic move by the executive in ensuring long-term proactive accountability after so many years of laidback, sluggish reactivity. 

There has been some commentary on this development in media outlets recently, some of which can be found here, here and here.

Limited information has been released but we will continue to read with interest as we learn more about the proposals, the remit of the officers, the jurisdiction and the roll out.

We are interested to hear your thoughts on the proposals. To discuss this further, please reach out to our team.

Contact Our Team